Trade Dispute: Brees/Morris for Lemon/Chambers

Q:  Here’s my situation: another player agreed to give up Drew Brees and an injured Sammy Morris in order to get Cleo Lemon and Chris Chambers from my team. Admittedly, this wasn’t the smartest trade on his part, and he’d previously made a dumb trade that gave me Rudi Johnson. But he thinks Cleo Lemon is a sleeper, and he agreed to the trade.

But after we both accepted the trade, people started making fun of him for it and he got buyer’s remorse. Then he convinced the league commissioner — who happened to be drunk at the time — to veto the trade, and he did. The reason he gave me is that my team is already too good (I drafted LT, Tom Brady and Ronnie Brown), and that trade would make me even better.

One note here: he’s a fantasy football novice in his first year in a league, but so am I. Of course, we’ve both watched football all our lives, so we’re really equal when it comes to experience.

I’m of the opinion that it’s only the commissioner’s role to veto trades when there is collusion between the trading players to boost one team and hurt another. I think players should decide for themselves whether they want to do a trade, and the commish doesn’t need to be league mommy.

What do you guys think should be the standard for a vetoed trade: collusion or lopsidedness, and what do you think of this situation?|

A:  Hi George.  Let’s address the general standards of a vetoed trade first.  We believe that a trade can and should be vetoed if a) there is collusion or b) the trade is one-sided to the point that it affects the balance of power in your league.  While we agree that your commissioner shouldn’t play league mommy, we also believe there are instances when the commissioner needs to step in and veto a trade simply because it is unfair.

Now to your specific situation. First there are three points that should have NO bearing on the decision. One - “the commissioner was drinking at the time” - that’s part of the job description.  Two - your “team is already too good” - while it is important to consider the needs of each team involved in a trade, by and large your current roster has no bearing on the fairness of a trade. Three - “he’d previously made a dumb trade” - an owner’s past actions should have no affect on one’s opinion of the trade in question - unless of course you are suspected of collusion.  This dispute sounds more like one owner is being accused of taking advantage of another, not working in cahoots, however.

That said, we don’t think this trade is lopsided to the point that it should be vetoed.  Your league starts 20 QBs each week.  Which greatly increases the value of Cleo Lemon (yes I just said that).  At least for the time being, he has job security.  There’s simply not a lot of talent to go around at the QB position when you need to start 2 per week and account for bye weeks.  Chambers, who has shown flashes of brilliance in the past, could flourish in San Diego.  Now the Brees/Morris side of the trade sounds like the better deal but be careful your judgements aren’t based on past experience or short-sightedness.  Brees, though he’s improved the last couple weeks, has struggled in 2007 and has yet to solidify his position amoung the QB elite.  Morris admittedly has torn up defenses recently, but a) he’s hurt, and b) he’s not even the starter.

We’d take the Brees/Morris side but this trade doesn’t deserve a veto.  We’d also recommend you put veto powers in the hands of the majority via league wide voting on disputes as opposed to letting the commish make all the decisions.  That might be something you need to wait until next season to sort out, however.